> "clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> "Bill Pragnell" <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> (took 140 hours to render at 2000x2000 - eek!)
>> Sounds to me like a case of "ur doin' it wrong": I see nothing in that shot that
>> would justify such a long render time.
> 
> Yes, it's entirely possible. However, refining the render time would probably
> take me several evenings' tinkering with the source, whereas if I just did
> something else during that time it's half finished anyway. :) The isosurface
> floor could probably use a smaller max_gradient, I could certainly get away
> with a lower-res area_light, radiosity quality may well be too high, and I seem
> to recall that the default media sampling (which this uses) is unwise. Including
> the media seemed to produce the biggest slow-down... and, of course, merely
> activating the aa on a scene like this is a huge drag.
> 
> (2000x2000 is also 4x the pixels posted here, but I guess you twigged that!)
> 
> 
Did you use adaptive for your area_light? It can greatly improve the 
rendering speed. With adaptive 1, a 65x65 area_light is barely slower 
than a 4x4 or 5x5 one without.

You may have inefecient bounding. If your construction make it that 
there are no bounding of your objects (intersection of planes), then 
each ray hace to be tested against every planes of every object. adding 
a bounded_by to your objects may greatly speed up the rendering.


Alain

Post a reply to this message